The Bible is Rediculous!

[_huckelberry]

Nehor, I completely agree with your comment defending Ezekiels literary credentials. He was published in a day when relatively few people were given that honor. Obviously people understood his writing style and respected it. He was the one with respect not a wandering disabled person. He was a respected author who knew how to use his literary conventions even if some modern readers are not familiar with them.

I cannot help but wonder if you have not overreached about seeing if the Gospels are literal history. I believe they are see more evidence for that in the fact that people in the first and second century understood them that way. They are part of a tradition not the origion of the tradition. That tradition remebers Jesus as an event in history.

But the odd thing about this discussion is how ofter people seem to assume literal or metaphorical or parable are seperate unmixiable catagories. I think they often occur in mixture. I think mixture may be more common than pure examples. I think it is possible that certain images in the Gospels are in fact not literal. A certain star would be a possible example. But on the other hand perhaps the star is literal? Who knows.

Can you tell if the Iliad is literal? I cannot.

[_The Nehor]

Nehor, I completely agree with your comment defending Ezekiels literary credentials. He was published in a day when relatively few people were given that honor. Obviously people understood his writing style and respected it. He was the one with respect not a wandering disabled person. He was a respected author who knew how to use his literary conventions even if some modern readers are not familiar with them.

I cannot help but wonder if you have not overreached about seeing if the Gospels are literal history. I believe they are see more evidence for that in the fact that people in the first and second century understood them that way. They are part of a tradition not the origion of the tradition. That tradition remebers Jesus as an event in history.

But the odd thing about this discussion is how ofter people seem to assume literal or metaphorical or parable are seperate unmixiable catagories. I think they often occur in mixture. I think mixture may be more common than pure examples. I think it is possible that certain images in the Gospels are in fact not literal. A certain star would be a possible example. But on the other hand perhaps the star is literal? Who knows.

Can you tell if the Iliad is literal? I cannot.

I agree that the Gospels came later. The story of the Resurrection was what converted. The stories of the life of Jesus came for edification for the converted. I doubt they were often a missionary tool.

I don't know how accurate the Iliad is but I don't think the writer's intent was to satisfy someone like the historians of our day. It would be akin to a romanticized version of Washington's victory over the British that touches lightly on real events but is intended to inspire patriotism, heroic deeds, etc. The Gospels seem to me too messy for this. Jesus is seen as amazing but is in relatively humdrum surroundings. If the composer of the Iliad wrote the life of Jesus we'd get much more detail of Peter's battle with the soldiers come to arrest Jesus, a much more dramatic court scene with long speeches given to Jesus and his accusers, and the Resurrection would have been much more epic as opposed to some soldiers getting knocked out and a stone moving.

[Guest]

God did not "tell folks" to cook with poop. He was instructing Ezekiel (not folks) on what he (Ezekiel) should do to make the point to the people of how they had already defiled themselves.

Whatever, I concede that point. The use of "folks" rather than Ezekiel was incorrect. Nonetheless God was supposedly instructing him to do all sorts of idiotic things. Laying on his side for hundreds of days, drawing a picture of the city, cooking with poop, etc., etc., etc.. What would one call all this nonsense? Performance art?

[_Nomomo]

As a little diversion. Here is a hilarious Jesus Video.

Jesus Will Survive - Jesus Christ! The Musical


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLKk00OYKhU

only 1 min. long

[_Nomomo]

One of my favorite videos from NonStampCollector. A unique view of god's plans.
What Would Jesus NOT Do?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOfjkl-3SNE&feature=channel_page

NonStampCollector http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=NonStampCollector&view=videos
We always hear about the many amazing things that Jesus of Nazareth apparently did, but nobody ever asks about the things that Jesus supposedly COULD have done, being omnipotent, but either didn't bother to do or didn't think were all that important. You know, things like... reducing human misery and suffering... that kind of thing.

It occurs to me that if indeed the miracles recorded in the Bible were in fact true, and really did happen... then that only shows Yahweh/Jesus to be an even MORE malevolent and cruel being than we see in the old testament, and that's saying something. If the miracles somehow prove that Jesus WAS in fact a god in human form, but all he could be bothered to do was turn water into wine and heal only a few hundred, or even a few thousand people with his magic saliva, then really - what is the use or good of such a god? Think of what a visiting, omnipotent deity COULD have done - but in this case, apparently, chose not to!!!!!

And this is meant to be that god's main advertisement of its existence! Walking on water in front of a few of his mates, for the benefit of billions and billions of people who, if they don't believe in his divinity and surrender control of their souls to him, will be sent to burn in agony for eternity.

People - DOES THIS damned RELIGION MAKE ANY SENSE AT ALL?????

**** VIRGIN BIRTHS****
There appears to be some disagreement about which of the virgin births I listed are in fact accurate records of religious traditions, especially Krishna, Horus and Mithra.
My main source for that list was : "Shaken Creeds: The Virgin Birth Doctrine, a study of its origin" (2003) by Jocelyn Rhys (Kessinger Publishing). Other sources were "God is not Great" (2007) by Christopher Hitchens (Published by Twelve), and Wikipedia.
I have rechecked these sources in light of the disputes that have come up. I admit to the error of listing Krishna on the basis of the Rhys book- I misread the passage dealing with Krishna. A genuine mistake... However, Hitchens DOES list Krishna as having been recognised as being born of a virgin.
Whilst I admit to the research error on the matter of Krishna and will take greater care next time, I put it to you that it still stands, that by NO MEANS WHATSOEVER was Jesus' birth to the 'virgin' Mary the first ever such miraculous conception ever recorded in a religious tradition. By the time the Jesus story was first written down, the idea of virgin deity-births was OLD, and had been done many, many times, and an omniscient Yahweh would have known this. Even if 50% of my list was put there in error, the point would still stand.
*******************

Inspiration for this one came from a link I was sent, to a website called Ebon Musings. Check this link. A couple of things on this page stood out as so wonderfully and scathingly accurate, and got me thinking.
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/guestessays/religion101.html
I'd like to say here that the first comment which included the word "evolution" came only 12 hours after the video was uploaded. Thanks for that, that's a new record. Let's see if we can get it quicker next time though, shall we?

PLEASE go and look up that incredible rant in Deuteronomy that I quoted at the beginning of the video. It didn't really relate to the theme of the vid but it is a damned classic passage, of Yahweh the bitter, wretched, old cunt in the sky, spewing his violent hatred of mankind into the faces of his dearly beloved "chosen" people. Deuteronomy 28. One of my new favorite Bible passages.

[_Thama]

I don't think Ezekiel fits the number 2 description and I seriously doubt the image of the Prophet dressed in a filthy robe with an umkempt beard ever existed except as a modern caricature. We ignore the ravings of hobos and I have no doubt that the Jewish people did the same and didn't record their words for posterity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delphi#Oracle

Were the Jews any less mystically inclined or gullible?

[_The Nehor]

I don't think Ezekiel fits the number 2 description and I seriously doubt the image of the Prophet dressed in a filthy robe with an umkempt beard ever existed except as a modern caricature. We ignore the ravings of hobos and I have no doubt that the Jewish people did the same and didn't record their words for posterity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delphi#Oracle

Were the Jews any less mystically inclined or gullible?

The oracle at Delphi wasn't a wandering vagrant either.

[_Thama]

The oracle at Delphi wasn't a wandering vagrant either.

But she did "prophecy" while under the influence of violent trances induced by psychoactive gases. In other words, anyone familiar with her behavior and the origin of what she said would have little rationale in assuming that it was sane, coherent, or in any way normal... just like a vagrant with schizophrenia.

There are even more parallels here, especially in the way that her jibberish was cleaned up, translated and explained by the temple priests, and the way that many of the absurdities present in the scriptures are cleaned up, translated, and explained by faithful apologists and scholars. But that's beside the point.

[_The Nehor]

The oracle at Delphi wasn't a wandering vagrant either.

But she did "prophecy" while under the influence of violent trances induced by psychoactive gases. In other words, anyone familiar with her behavior and the origin of what she said would have little rationale in assuming that it was sane, coherent, or in any way normal... just like a vagrant with schizophrenia.

There are even more parallels here, especially in the way that her jibberish was cleaned up, translated and explained by the temple priests, and the way that many of the absurdities present in the scriptures are cleaned up, translated, and explained by faithful apologists and scholars. But that's beside the point.

True, in that sense Ezekiel and the oracle had nothing in common. Ezekiel was a pretty literate educated guy who spoke of present-day conditions and commands and threw in some visions he'd had to give the people hope that they would not be in Babylon forever.

[_Roger]

Nomomo:

I wrote:

God did not "tell folks" to cook with poop. He was instructing Ezekiel (not folks) on what he (Ezekiel) should do to make the point to the people of how they had already defiled themselves.

You wrote:

Whatever, I concede that point. The use of "folks" rather than Ezekiel was incorrect.

Thank you, but that is a rather large concession when one considers the thesis of this thread.

Nonetheless God was supposedly instructing him to do all sorts of idiotic things. Laying on his side for hundreds of days, drawing a picture of the city, cooking with poop, etc., etc., etc.. What would one call all this nonsense? Performance art?

Which is why I wrote:

You are not the intended audience for the book of Ezekiel, therefore it is understandible that you don't get the point.

I'm not convinced that either God or Ezekiel was terribly concerned that someone a couple thousand years+ down the road would not comprehend the meaning behind the "performance art" because he doesn't take the time to objectively analyze the text and take things like culture and context into consideration. I'm thinking the message to the intended audience probably took precedence.